dfa2c4a2-344a-448b-adea-ed0d9d5ad6a7-image.png
Napoleon and alexander
-
IL that is an invalid comparison.
Alexander CREATED many methods of warfare that worked well with the implements he had in the time he had them.
You can;t then go and say (give Alexander guns and field artillery" and have him go head to head with another 3000 years of military tactics advances.
Hell, Alexander would lose to your average SEARGEANT under those standards.
-
I never said anything about either general having to be limited to their own technology. The analogy was drawn to remove this possibility. What i meant was if Ceaser or napoleon just “puff” entered Alexanders time and used the same materials but brought their own ideas to how war should be fought they would have succeeded much better than Alexander because they “invented” new military ideas to the world that were never used or considered. So they use the old materials but take the ideas and apply them. What Alexander did in the time of Rome or France was so fully refuted it would have looked like “an old trick”
In this manner we can extrapolate the best Chess player because the ideas from the past in how the Chess game was won or lost ( e.g. the tactics) was very poorly constructed and could have been easily refuted with modern chess theory’s. That is a major reason why Alexander is not the best … because he didn’t stand on the shoulders of history to learn from its experience. This important advantage of reflection would not be possible in Alexanders time because of the limited knowledge before his own time.
This is the only honest way to compare one general from another in different times.
To bring the Chess analogy back for perspective Players like Paul Morphy, or Philidor or even Alekhine would rate as low rated grandmasters by todays standards.
History is replete with examples of using the ideas of the past and learning from them.
Its like comparing a doctor from different centuries but they can only use the same tools to heal. The Modern doctor would have saved many more lives because he studied and came from a greater backround or foundation of knowledge. The first doctor would have drilled holes in the guys head, and the modern doctor would have made a redumentary cast so the skull could heal.
-
I think it really depends on your views of what makes a great general. Is it the strategy, tactics, methodology, diplomacy, or combinations of these? I think Kahn is overlooked by many, because he was considered more of a raider than a general. If he had the same army and technology, I believe he could hold his own with any of the generals mentioned. Just my opinion, of course. :wink:
-
IL you missed my point.
Yes, I know that we are assuming equal weapons.
But Alexander was a pioneer of battle techniques, and his army mastered those new skill sets.
But in the several thousand years after Alexander, there were improvements, not just weapons, but in tactics. And Ceaser had the benefit of about 100 years of thsoe advances, Napoleon about 3000 years of those advances.
You would ahve to not only make up for the weapons differences, but also provide a means for Alexander to have access to that 3000 year period of general tactical advances before you could compare him to Napoleon, or somehow remove 3000 years of accumulated global knowledge that Napoleon had access to before he went back in tim to face Alexander.
-
No thats not true. They were a product of their times. The only equal playing field is materials to wage war… the knowledge of military strategy is an acute quality of taking the knowledge and applying it in a new way. If you want to educate alexander in modern military strategy thats the same thing as giving him tanks and V-2 rockets to fight the persain empire. Knowledge ( of the development of thought of strategy) and material ( technology really) are both a resource that must be kept out of the equation to decide who is a better general.
-
Like I said, its only fair to compare generals from the same time. For example, lets try……
                            George S. Patton vs Erwin Rommel
Both were pioneers in armored warfare and both were very good at it. So who was the better general? Post now!!
-
Well if both had to switch sides. Id say Rommel would have won with much fewer loses and probably got the objective sooner because he understood the idea of mobile warfare better. If Patton had to deal with the italians as his "allies’ he would have shot them or told them to go home and make pizzas for his troops. He hardly understood the idea of making the best of a bad situation, while Rommel allways understood the reality of what he had to work with and could improvise allmost anything on the battlefield from scratch…. However Von Manstein was a greater general than Rommel without question.We never had to face him in battle as he spent all his time in russia.
-
Wasnt Von Manstein the guy whom did a brilliant regrouping of his forces to retake Kharkov? Ive read about that before and it was a well executed operation that is sometimes overlooked.
-
Yes he did this. He was in command of Army group south from 1941-1943. many of his ideas were held back by hitler, but when he was allowed to do his own thing he suceeded well. Nearly every mistake hitler made was argued against before he made it by manstein but to no avail. Rommel was in a far away area where Hitler hardly understood desert warfare or was comfortable with it. Thats why he was able to do and get away with alot more things that hitler would have frown upon.
Mainstein was in charge of the stalingrad relief force and also commanding at kursk…but in those efforts he hated the method the battle was conducted. He wanted to russians to advance and then cut them off rather than attack a prepared defense.
Manstein was a great at defense. The germans faced incredable odds in 1943 and he was able to hold much of the territory and in some cases retook some back.
-
Never forget the much vaunted statement by Patton in Africa…
“Rommel you magnificent bastard I READ YOUR BOOK!”
Which means Patton LEARNED from Rommel. So I would have to place Rommel ahead of Patton.
Kind of like BGEN William “Billy” Mitchel is probably one of the greatest air commanders in history, eventhough he was “between the wars”. He is the one who say what was possible with Airforce, and pushed the War Department to work with AF. Without General Mitchel in the 1920’s, the US would have entered WWII as ill prepared as the Polish did…
-
“Rommel you magnificent bastard I READ YOUR BOOK!”
Which means Patton LEARNED from Rommel.
I dont base my opinions on a movie script. You have to look at the historical record of how he performed under different situations. Patton allways led his forces when he had the advantage and was invaribly assigned excellent logistical supply. He never had to fight a desperate battle when he was outnumbered 3 to 1 and still managed to come out on top. He was a great general when he had overwhelming numbers.
The germans were usually on the short end of the stick in combat except in very early campaigns and about 1-2 short periods in a single battle.
PS dont use wikpedia to support that movie quote… any bloke can just stick any type of jiberish imaginable on that site. Alot of that movie is accurate but many of his lines were embellished to add more effect. Of course he said many improper things and got himself in alot of trouble but in my books i have of him that was not one of his ‘real moments’.
-
And what of Mitchel then?
Never fought a battle, but without him we would have had bi-plane observers to counter the Luftwaffe and Imperial Air Force.
-
He amoung others supported the idea that made large capital warships like battleships an idea of the past. But as you know the Japanese also knew about the importance of airplanes.
The bombing campaign over germany was not as productive as men as like him and gen. Spaatz would have hoped.
I dont think they are in the same catagory as a proper land general.
-
“Proper land general”???
OK. I have had enough. Otherwise this former USAF Cadet will have to get medevil on your ass :-P
-
just go with the “bomb them back to the stone age” quote, should beat every land general there is.
-
“It is probable that future war will be conducted by a special class, the Air Force, as it was by the armored knights of the middle ages.”
Brigadier General William “Billy” Mitchell, Winged Defense, 1924“In the development of air power, one has to look ahead and not backward and figure out what is going to happen, not too much of what has happened”
Ibid.Both quotes courtsey of Contrails Volume 33, 1987-1988 edition
-
That future war is not any war that was fought before 1945. Today this is a different matter due to technology the lethality of warfare has progressed to the point where everything can be planned out. I think generalship is now a lost art because today everthing to the finest detail can be accounted and the ‘fog of war’ is lost. A war can be won before its even fought. Airpower can deliver the goods faster than any soldier, tank or artillery.
-
And that progression has been thousands of years in the making.
Which is why I say that even with comparable weapons, a side-by-side of Napoleon and Alexander is invalid, because Napoleon has the advantage of 3000 years of advances in the methods of warfare (not just weapons, but also tactics) to anchor his abilities, while Alexander would be bereft of those 3000 years of accumulated skill.
-
OK, Napoleon cuts off Alexander’s supply. Right, Alexander had that happen to him when his first invading Persia. Darius cut of his supply had him surrounded and outnumber 3-1. Alexander fought his way through and won the battle. No surprise or innovation coming from Nappy there.
Caesar himself admitting to not being a great field commander. I have no idea what innovations Caesar brought to the battlefield. He subjugated northern tribes much like Alexander did through the middle east. And the only large battle I am currently aware of that Caesar fought was against Pompey. Caesar had about 22 000 men to Pompey’s 44 000. Hardly epic, Caesar won.
I wouldn’t argue that Napoleon wasn’t a great general. I agree he was an absolutely amazing general. His innovation of command and control was brilliant. However, the battle field tactics he used were not that different from what Alexander had done. The main idea being to simply pin your enemies main force and thrust at a weak point in the line or flank with cavalry. Napoleon used infantry formations for this as well.
IP I think I understand were you’re coming from, however, I don’t agree with you. Or, more accurately, I don’t agree with you interpertation of what makes a great general.
-
General comments:
Alexander conquered an already falling apart Persian Empire that had already been soundly defeated by the Greeks at Marathon and Salamis. Alexander had a better army with the phalanx, and his troops were well trained, while the Persian troops were hastily gathered soldiers raised by hiring them for money on the spot–- eg. levies.
Caesar on the other hand, fought against huge Gallic and German peoples who had never been conquered by the Romans. The people of Gaul were brave and brutal. At the battle of Alesia against Vercingetorix, Caesar, while besieging the Gallic leader, was surrounded by a huge Gallic army, which some accounts place at as large as 180,000-200,000 men. Caesar, with his force of 30,000, fought off both the surrounding army and the large force that he was besieging. In a great battle, Caesar annihilated the surrounding force and sacked Alesia, ending the war. Although against the Gauls he had superior troops with the legionaries, in the Roman Civil War he completely annihilated a Roman force which outnumbered him three to one and was led by Pompey the Great, one of Romes greatest generals. This shows that Caesar was greater than Alexander.
“the whole campaign resulted in 800 conquered cities, 300 subdued tribes, one million men sold to slavery and another three million dead in battle fields. Ancient historians notoriously exaggerated numbers of this kind, but Caesar’s conquest of Gaul was certainly the greatest military invasion since the campaigns of Alexander the Great. The victory was also far more lasting than those of Alexander’s” —quoted from internet site.
Battle of Pharsalus: Pompey vastly outnumbered Caesar with some 45,000 infantry and 7,000 cavalry to Caesar’s 22,000 and 1,000 respectively.Ceasar won.
Siege of Alesia: Romans were outnumbered as many as 6 to 1. Ceasar won
on the other hand Alexanders great ideas that be brought to the mix: the phalanx and the concept of Seige. But in both cases those wre allready in use from the contributions of others.
facts:
1)The tactic of the phalanx is sometimes credited to Alexander but It was Alexander’s father, Phillip, who developed that tactic of a phalanx.- Secondly, the concept of a seige had been used for centuries, such as in the Assyrian Empire, where they have found remains of siege weapons and accounts of prolonged sieges.
Conclusion: The Romans were constantly upgrading their legionaries until the late western empire. They kept adding new tactics and new training to keep them up to date. The greeks, on the other hand, rarely upgraded the phalanx, and it remained largely unchanged hundreds of years after its invention. So Alexander didnt “add” anything to strategy in this respect. Secondly, Ceaser was perhaps the greatest strategist in the tactic of seige as evidenced by Alesia. again the master of this tactic goes to Ceasar.
Also, you have to Remember the armies of Caesars time were a lot bigger than in Alexander’s time, so they were more difficult to manage. This is a credit to ceaser and its also a credit to Napoleon.Alexander worked with comparatively smaller forces so it was an easier project to manage.
An other difference between Ceasar and Alexander was also bound in temperament, and that was that Alexander acted mainly on impulse, as whole his nature and personality was impulsive, while Ceasar on the other hand planned everything he did like a perfectionist.
Suggested Topics
